Tribunal allows appeal for refund claim due to erroneous service tax payment

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for remand in a case concerning a refund claim of service tax paid against the wrong PAN-based registration number due to a change in proprietorship. Despite the change in proprietor, the service provider's name remained the same, leading to the erroneous payment of service tax. The appellant rectified the error by paying the tax again with interest. The Tribunal concluded that if the service tax was indeed paid twice for the same services, the appellant would be entitled to a refund. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further verification.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim of service tax paid against the wrong PAN-based registration number due to a change in proprietorship.

Analysis:
The case involves a refund claim of service tax paid amounting to a specific sum due to a mistake in depositing the tax against the PAN-based registration number of the outgoing proprietor instead of the new proprietor. The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, argued that despite the change in proprietorship, the name of the service provider remained the same, leading to the erroneous payment of service tax. The new proprietor rectified the error by paying the tax again with interest. Supporting documents such as the transfer of business agreement and sales registration were submitted to validate the claim.

The Revenue's representative contended that verification of the documents was necessary to confirm the double payment of service tax against the same set of invoices. The matter was suggested to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for a thorough examination to determine the eligibility of the refund claim.

Upon review, it was observed that despite the change in proprietor, the service provider's name remained unchanged, potentially resulting in the incorrect deposit of service tax against the same registration number. The appellant claimed that the outgoing proprietor continued to deposit the tax until the registration number was changed, and the new proprietor subsequently paid the tax in full with interest. The Tribunal concluded that if the service tax was indeed paid twice for the same services, the appellant would be entitled to a refund. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further verification. The appeal was allowed for remand.

---